Terri,
I agree with the first two paragraphs. No quibbles there. The theorists and
their positions are nicely tallied.
As for the third, hmmmm, perhaps. But I could be a language programme inside
a computer, with no conscious existence of my own, responding to your
sentences. All of the people on the list might be too. No doubt such
programming might once have required embodiment but once completed it could
continue according to certain rules.
As for the logo, "a heavenly body". Heaven forbid that you are mooning, and
flattering yourself in the process. Here was me thinking that it was a
mouth, like mine, stuck in the open position. (Certainly not worse than
mine).
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: "alderoak" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
Embodiment is not momentary.
A Cartesian can imagine his moments either being 'heady' or 'embodied'. An
embodiment theorist would insist that the capacity to *view* oneself as
existing either *in* ones head or *in* one's body or, how vibrant, *in* the
binary transience of cyber-space draws on our body's ability to see itself,
to move and so on.
Your capacity to imagine yourself as a cyber-programme - and the fleshly
consequences of that new status - is further evidence of you innate embodied
status. The reason androids make such lousy stand-up comedians is that they
lack humour (choler, bile...)
The logo is, naturally, a heavenly body.
Terri )O(
-----Original Message-----
From: The Pennine Poetry Works [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Colin dewar
Sent: 19 February 2003 18:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
Terri,
... but it was you introduced me to the embodied moment, on 16.2.
If my moments are not heady and nor are they to be embodied then maybe I am
a cyber-programme afterall. Should save on some of the bills.
By the way, I'm beginning to get a bit worried about your logo, )O(. It's
not meant to be a sphincter by any chance?
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: alderoak
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
"In my headiest moments". This is light-hearted and hopefully friendly
self-mockery. I could have easily said, "pushing the boat out" or "some
days".
But you didn't say either of those things, Colin. You said 'in my headiest
moments'. As this is a poetry list, I tend to assume that I am allowed to
critique everything as if it were poetry. In a poem, each of your substitute
phrases would take the reader somewhere entirely different.
"I hope I am no stranger to the embodied moment."
Me too. But since (I hope) you are real and not a cyber-program, that is
impossible. Embodiment is not momentary.
Terri )O(
-----Original Message-----
From: The Pennine Poetry Works [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Colin dewar
Sent: 16 February 2003 19:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
Terri,
I think we are on different paths here. Still, here goes.
If something is unsayable it may become sayable. (Because the individual or
the group may develop, making the communication possible). Once it is
sayable then the communication or any particular occasion may succeed or
fail. My desire, as reader or writer is that the utmost effort be put into
making it succeed. I don't expect everyone to share this sentiment. It is
just one possible view in a community of mutually respecting people.
Different views can co-exist, amicably, not annihilating each other.
The truly novel idea or feeling may use a truly novel metaphor to
communicate. I count this as an effort to communicate clearly, and it may
succeed (be far from obscure), when nothing else has. This leads to
understanding (or partial understanding, at least). Understanding may be at
various levels as you know, but at any rate includes the visceral and
palpable.
Communication may vary a great deal in its mode. Coleridge's Kubla Khan is a
superb example of communication (at the level of the symbol).
"In my headiest moments". This is light-hearted and hopefully friendly
self-mockery. I could have easily said, "pushing the boat out" or "some
days". I hope I am no stranger to the embodied moment.
BW
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: alderoak
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
Rather than saying it clearly, the unsayable is said obscurely? Not by
perverse intention but because the truly novel idea requires truly novel
metaphors to carry it into the waking world.
In your headiest moments, this is nonsense. In your most embodied moments it
is all the senses.
(Try reading Murray Cox - Mutative Metaphors in Psychotherapy. Or try
transcribing, accurately, the words of your patients. Ask them if you can
read their poems. People with psychotic processes have to push the boundary
if they are not to remain utterly alone with inexpressible ideas.)
Terri )O(
-----Original Message-----
From: The Pennine Poetry Works [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Colin dewar
Sent: 15 February 2003 16:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
I've written many a dud trying. Can the boundary be pushed? In my headiest
moments I think anything can be said, if only I can find the words.
Cheers,
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: alderoak
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
Ah, Colin, but what if it cannot be said at all, what then?
Terri )O(
-----Original Message-----
From: The Pennine Poetry Works [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Colin dewar
Sent: 14 February 2003 18:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
Not sure I share this sentiment. If it can be said at all it can be said
clearly, I say.
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: Christina Fletcher
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Revelation of the smart chair
OK, Mike, the easiest way for me to do this is to chop up your poem, so I
hope you'll forgive me for doing just that and pasting it in below. What's
left is what feels to me to be the heart of the poem. What I get from it is
a sense of the changing nature of things/relationships, pre and
misconceptions and the complexity of truth/illusion. It also gives me a
feeling of resigned sorrow and it's open enough for me to relate what you've
written to my own feelings. This space for the reader seems to me to be a
central issue in contemporary poetry, though I dare say I could easily be
shot down on that since I don't know much. I don't think it's necessary to
'understand' precisely what a poet's trying to say. For me, not knowing has
always been one of the interesting things about poetry - perhaps it's the
musical element in it, perhaps it's the idea that you're left with more to
discover when you read it again. So I think I'd leave the reader to sum up
the meeting rather than doing it for them.
Not sure that this helps much but it's all I can really say.
bw
christina
Revelation of the Smart Chair
after Peter Didsbury
So I returned to our seaside town,
wearing its sad, out-of-season aspect,
the pier shut up, cold rollers crashing on pebbles,
the gulls' desolation, seeing a pale reflection of summer self
and noting that the greyness had been there all along.
We had coffee in the same cafe
where six months earlier we drunk our last coffees.
We avoided the past, stuck to neutral topics.
You spoke of a poem by Didsbury and how a confusingly complex
truth
might be embodied in a sentient, really smart chair.
You spoke of music, beating time with the flat of your hand
as you rehearsed the tune of a composer
I had not known you enjoyed.
And it was not until my train was on its way,
our meeting receding into a past of its own, that the clouds
parted
and what I had taken for a flying cliché
showed itself as a bird of a quite different feather.
(Mike's poem, chopped up by Christina)
Hello Christina,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, others have mentioned the
opening. It seems my fascination with getting clichés into poems is not
shared by everyone. How odd. I take your points also about cutting some of
the middle. Did I really write `dismal greyness´? Blimey. I´m very
interested in your final comment - that the poem ends at `different feather´
and the last two lines are just telling not showing. If you have the time
and sufficient interest, could I ask what those lines told you?
Thanks again for your reading and comments.
Best wishes, Mike
|
